Re: xen/x86: resolve the last 3 MISRA R16.6 violations

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.02.2025 03:16, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > @@ -3797,22 +3797,14 @@ uint64_t hvm_get_reg(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int 
> > reg)
> >  {
> >      ASSERT(v == current || !vcpu_runnable(v));
> >  
> > -    switch ( reg )
> > -    {
> > -    default:
> > -        return alternative_call(hvm_funcs.get_reg, v, reg);
> > -    }
> > +    return alternative_call(hvm_funcs.get_reg, v, reg);
> >  }
> >  
> >  void hvm_set_reg(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int reg, uint64_t val)
> >  {
> >      ASSERT(v == current || !vcpu_runnable(v));
> >  
> > -    switch ( reg )
> > -    {
> > -    default:
> > -        return alternative_vcall(hvm_funcs.set_reg, v, reg, val);
> > -    }
> > +    return alternative_vcall(hvm_funcs.set_reg, v, reg, val);
> >  }
> 
> Both of these were, iirc, deliberately written using switch(), to ease
> possible future changes.

To be honest, I do not see any value in the way they are currently
written. However, if you prefer, I can add a deviation for this, with
one SAF comment for each of these two. The reason for the deviation
would be "deliberate to ease possible future change". Please let me know
how you would like to proceed.